[CharlesWayneCT]

The government can take your property if:

1. You don't pay your taxes
2. You are suspected of committing drug offenses in your house
3. Any person in your house is suspected of committing drug offenses
4. If they want to build a road.
5. If they want to build a courthouse, or jail.
6. If they want to remove a blighted neighborhood.
7. If they want to build a public park, or a parking lot.
8. If they want to spur economic development.

Now, with this ruling, we have simply expanded number 8 to more directly transfer property to another private entity.

The 5th amendment really speaks more to the requirement for government to PAY you for your property if they take it, NOT so much to prevent them from taking it.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

We need to fight our local governments. This ruling simply gives them the right to do more of what they do. We can vote people into office who put the citizens above corporate interests.

I hate this ruling, but at least we do have a recourse.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Having read the opinion of Kennedy, and O'Conner, and gotten a little way through Thomas (he is excellent as always, and reading him shows me how STUPID Senator Reid is, saying that Thomas writes like an 8th-grader), I withdraw my previous comments regarding the scope of the 5th amendment.

This ruling is wrong, and we need to get a judge that will fix it on the Supreme Court. If only Stevens would retire.